The Sirach

[Josh]

In a place like Kansas this is rather different, although most Mennonite Brethren are best described as Dutch Mennonite background people who adopted evangelical doctrines in the 19th centuries in Ukraine.

To get a better feel for what Dutch Anabaptism is like, one can take a peek at Old Colonists, or at Holdemans from Kansas or Canada. These people are legitimately "Mennonites".

As a former MB, and a student of the history of both the Dutch "baptism-minded" in general, and also specifically of the MB church's doctrine & history, I do not find these statements to be true, unless some terminology is being used differently than I suspect. I'll only speak for my own people, and admit that the Old Colony Mennonites are a severe distortion of the early 'Dutch Mennonite' beliefs and practices, and that the MB conference has also lost much of its original focus, but this all came about in the last 40 years or so, certainly not in the colonies, at their beginning.

The MBs adopted a lot of evangelical practices like full immersion baptism, highly emotional protracted meetings and so forth. It has been obvious they have continued in a progression to a nearly complete evangelical identity into the present day.

With Old Colonists you can still see some pre-evangelical practices in action, which seem bizarre to us, like church every other week and leaving younger children at home on church days.

[Soloist]

My understanding is that in cases of persistent immorality, the excommunication was to extend to family relationships, specifically that they were not to eat together. This was Menno's position, and it was my understanding that Jakob took the same view.)

I’m unsure if he personally thought that was better or not but he specifically wrote in response to questions of a wife refusing to shun her husband and pleaded with them for tolerance and not to put her out as well. That is my basis for contesting your position of his.

As to the 'celestial flesh' deal, while Menno may have used this terminology, my point is that he clearly didn't mean it in the way it is represented by opponents I've spoken with in Swiss Brethren circles here in Ohio. He never said that the BODY of Jesus descended in physical form from heaven, just that it was of "heavenly origin", not "physical origin". That is, he followed John 1 literally, that the WORD BECAME flesh. (Not "took on human flesh" as say Calvin and his followers.) (This is an area in which Menno does what he cautions his readers NOT to do - going beyond Scripture to "fill in the blanks" in what truth can be found there. He utilized a false scientific explanation of conception to bolster his understanding.)

I certainly never took it that way, I took that Menno was suggesting and cautiously at that, that God’s contribution was the heavenly flesh mixed with human in the womb.
I’d have to reread it myself.

I apologize, but I don't have the time necessary to find and quote his 'exact' words. (Assuming that the English translation available to me accurately reflects the original Dutch.) I do recall having been accurately corrected in the past here, on something I said about what Menno wrote, so perhaps this is the case you recall. I just don't remember the specifics, and I don't do well with the search feature on this forum.

At some point I will borrow it again and look around and see what I see. I know this is a common enough claim of people about the Anabaptist writers and I haven’t actually seen any proof of it despite being unsure on it myself.

[temporal1]

It’s difficult, but, i think, helpful, to try to remember, the labels, “Lutherans,” and “Mennonites,” were DEROGATORY, and PUNISHABLE, they did not originate in respect. It’s hard to imagine now.

Possibly, the label, “Christian,” is going in that direction today?

i have a close family member who has told me he doesn’t want anything to do with anything Christian, although he was born into Catholicism, and benefited from it. He is well educated, well employed, enjoys being hep, and “knows,” socially, Christianity is over.
It’s sad. i don’t believe unusual. If not before, colleges are good at removing Christianity from students.

Neither Luther nor Menno had any intention or desire to start new denoms under their own names! Not a goal.

Lots of people have no idea of this, it’s a common criticism of those who don’t know. It’s often suspected these names meant members were to worship these men, which is understandable, but false. i’ve noticed this in my own family at times, even in devout Protestants. Lots of Christians today have no idea of the Reformation, at all. Many more know nothing of Anabaptists or Mennonites. Most recognize Amish because of distinctive dress, horses, trades, and marketed products.

History that isn’t taught+studied is changed, if not lost. Often, without intention.

[Neto]

In a place like Kansas this is rather different, although most Mennonite Brethren are best described as Dutch Mennonite background people who adopted evangelical doctrines in the 19th centuries in Ukraine.

To get a better feel for what Dutch Anabaptism is like, one can take a peek at Old Colonists, or at Holdemans from Kansas or Canada. These people are legitimately "Mennonites".

As a former MB, and a student of the history of both the Dutch "baptism-minded" in general, and also specifically of the MB church's doctrine & history, I do not find these statements to be true, unless some terminology is being used differently than I suspect. I'll only speak for my own people, and admit that the Old Colony Mennonites are a severe distortion of the early 'Dutch Mennonite' beliefs and practices, and that the MB conference has also lost much of its original focus, but this all came about in the last 40 years or so, certainly not in the colonies, at their beginning.

The MBs adopted a lot of evangelical practices like full immersion baptism, highly emotional protracted meetings and so forth. It has been obvious they have continued in a progression to a nearly complete evangelical identity into the present day.

With Old Colonists you can still see some pre-evangelical practices in action, which seem bizarre to us, like church every other week and leaving younger children at home on church days.

I guess if meeting every week for Christian fellowship and joint worship is 'evangelical' (which I take in the the way you used the word as intended to be a negative thing, something 'bad'), then I want that. During most of our years in Brazil I had the pleasure of meeting daily with another brother doing Bible translation work for his language, and I SO miss that now. Now our congregation only meets once a week, and I don't think that is enough. The Amish have the advantage in that each congregation lives within a much smaller area, and so they probably meet "by chance" fairly often during the two weeks between each service. (And buggies go slow, and I've sometimes seen two buggies stopped on the road, having paused to talk a bit as they pass. That's also an advantage, and I've told them so.)

One thing about the MB church that actually IS an 'evangelical' trait is the recognition of believers outside one's own group. It came as a shock to them back then, in the late 1850's, before they formed on Jan. 6th, 1860. In fact, that's where the 'Brethren' part of the name came from - they were called that by the 'big church Mennonites' in derision. But I agree with that idea, and I find fellowship with most of the Amish where I do technical service work. I apologized to one business owner after a spiritual discussion carried on rather long, and he said "That's the best part." One time some years ago I stopped at a bicycle shop on my way home from a service call, actually for something personal, for my own bike. The owner & I got to talking, and I had such a good time sharing with one another that I left in tears.

Regarding the former MB position of baptism only by immersion, I don't agree with that stance, and I personally don't think that immersion was the intended meaning of the word. (I don't think they would use a different mode even now, if requested, but until around 1964 they wouldn't accept any other mode at all, for someone coming into the congregation from another type of Mennonite congregation. The only essential now is that it was a baptism upon personal faith, not just a "right confession" of doctrine.) I do also disagree with their current practice of 'open communion'. (This is also a change that came about long after the beginning of the MB conf.) I realize that it might be expected to go along with the recognition of true believers outside of one's own group, but what Ernie (here on MennoNet) calls "close communion" fits with how I understand the I Corinthians text about the Lord's Supper, that it is not just vertical (between God and I as an individual), but it is also horizontal (the fellowship between fellow believers who are well-known to you).

Have a blessed Sunday, whether it is a fellowship day, or not.

[temporal1]

2023 / new topic:

The Apocrypha
viewtopic.php?t=6157

I've read that Sirach came the closest to being accepted by the Jews as a part of their canon.
The Maccabees was also valued, but mainly as a historical record of the time period many Christians refer to as the "Time of Silence" (or something to that effect).

(We read through all of these books in our Old Testament Survey course in Bible institute. This class was taught by Dr. Daniel Goldberg, a Christian Jew.
I don't know if that school continued with the same syllabus after he left there, and became a professor at the Bible college to which I had transferred earlier. I did ministry service in the mission he was involved in, helping his wife with Jewish evangelism, and kept in touch with them for some years after graduation. I attribute my continued interest in Jewish belief and practice to that involvement with them.)